Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study analyses the impacts of the Lausanne Treaty upon the British colonial rule.So far, much has been discussed about how the Turkish War of Independence between 1919 and 1922 and the conclusion of Lausanne Treaty in 1923 influenced anti-imperialist or anti-colonial movements on the Middle East.That means the issue was usually studied from the perspective of the colonized.However, the colonizer side of the issue is often neglected.Whereas the British Parliamentary discussions during the ratification of the Lausanne Treaty expose that this Treaty posed serious questions for the British colonial administration.Specifically, Canada's challenge to the British colonial rule concerning the ratification of the Lausanne Treaty provoked heated debates in the British Parliament.British colonies' contribution to the imperial military campaigns and their role in the peace settlements were open to debate.Besides, the administrative approach to the colonies created a dispute in the British domestic politics between the liberals and the conservatives.Thus, it is argued that the Lausanne Treaty generated an immediate impact on the colonial administration and the domestic politics of the British Empire as well.From this point of view, the Lausanne Treaty as a special post-First World War (WWI) agreement is formulated here as a critical stage in the decolonization movement, which is usually taken as a post-Second World War phenomenon.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".